Literature DB >> 8562162

In search of the best upper age limit for breast cancer screening.

R Boer1, H J de Koning, G J van Oortmarssen, P J van der Maas.   

Abstract

The aim of this study was to determine the best upper age limit for a breast cancer screening programme. We used a model-based study using optimistic and pessimistic assumptions, concerning improvement of prognosis due to screen-detection and duration of the period of mammographic detectability, resulting in upper and lower limits for favourable and unfavourable effects. Under pessimistic assumptions, the balance between positive and negative effects of screening remains favourable up to an age of around 80 years. Under optimistic assumptions, this balance never becomes clearly negative with increase of the upper age limit of a screening programme. When including the costs in the analysis, the balance between effects and costs of increasing the upper age limit from 69 to 75 years is likely to be at least as favourable as intensifying a screening programme within the age group 50-69 years. A further increase leads to a markedly less favourable balance. Competing causes of death do not lead to missing net benefit for women up to at least age 80 years, but the disproportional rise of negative effects of screening with age in older women leads to a lower cost-effectiveness ratio than intensifying screening at ages 50-69 years.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1995        PMID: 8562162     DOI: 10.1016/0959-8049(95)00457-2

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Cancer        ISSN: 0959-8049            Impact factor:   9.162


  10 in total

1.  Modeling the impact of population screening on breast cancer mortality in the United States.

Authors:  Jeanne S Mandelblatt; Kathleen A Cronin; Donald A Berry; Yaojen Chang; Harry J de Koning; Sandra J Lee; Sylvia K Plevritis; Clyde B Schechter; Natasha K Stout; Nicolien T van Ravesteyn; Marvin Zelen; Eric J Feuer
Journal:  Breast       Date:  2011-10       Impact factor: 4.380

Review 2.  Mammographic screening in older women. Is it worthwhile?

Authors:  J A van Dijck; M J Broeders; A L Verbeek
Journal:  Drugs Aging       Date:  1997-02       Impact factor: 3.923

3.  Decision making and counseling around mammography screening for women aged 80 or older.

Authors:  Mara A Schonberg; Radhika A Ramanan; Ellen P McCarthy; Edward R Marcantonio
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2006-09       Impact factor: 5.128

4.  Benefits and harms of mammography screening after age 74 years: model estimates of overdiagnosis.

Authors:  Nicolien T van Ravesteyn; Natasha K Stout; Clyde B Schechter; Eveline A M Heijnsdijk; Oguzhan Alagoz; Amy Trentham-Dietz; Jeanne S Mandelblatt; Harry J de Koning
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2015-05-06       Impact factor: 13.506

5.  Effects of mammography screening under different screening schedules: model estimates of potential benefits and harms.

Authors:  Jeanne S Mandelblatt; Kathleen A Cronin; Stephanie Bailey; Donald A Berry; Harry J de Koning; Gerrit Draisma; Hui Huang; Sandra J Lee; Mark Munsell; Sylvia K Plevritis; Peter Ravdin; Clyde B Schechter; Bronislava Sigal; Michael A Stoto; Natasha K Stout; Nicolien T van Ravesteyn; John Venier; Marvin Zelen; Eric J Feuer
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2009-11-17       Impact factor: 25.391

6.  Chronic disease as a barrier to breast and cervical cancer screening.

Authors:  C I Kiefe; E Funkhouser; M N Fouad; D S May
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  1998-06       Impact factor: 5.128

7.  Weighing the benefits and burdens of mammography screening among women age 80 years or older.

Authors:  Mara A Schonberg; Rebecca A Silliman; Edward R Marcantonio
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2009-03-02       Impact factor: 44.544

8.  Rising incidence of breast cancer among female cancer survivors: implications for surveillance.

Authors:  I Soerjomataram; W J Louwman; L E M Duijm; J W W Coebergh
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2008-12-09       Impact factor: 7.640

9.  Cost effectiveness of breast cancer screening using mammography; a systematic review.

Authors:  Arash Rashidian; Eshagh Barfar; Hamed Hosseini; Shirin Nosratnejad; Esmat Barooti
Journal:  Iran J Public Health       Date:  2013-04-01       Impact factor: 1.429

10.  Cost-effectiveness of stereotactic large-core needle biopsy for nonpalpable breast lesions compared to open-breast biopsy.

Authors:  J H Groenewoud; R M Pijnappel; M E van den Akker-Van Marle; E Birnie; T Buijs-van der Woude; W P Th M Mali; H J de Koning; E Buskens
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2004-01-26       Impact factor: 7.640

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.